god thread, number 3 Options

[*disco infiltrator*]

So, it seems that everything talked about in another thread leads to religion.

So here we are!
Debate the existence of God and which one's right and stuff.

I would post links to God threads 1 & 2, but you can't search for three-letter words.
(2 got to 50 pages, think we can beat it?!?)

Er, I'll start.
I'm atheist. Prove me wrong.
By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2.

[sadolakced acid]

the rules of logic dictate skepticism before blind faith.

therefore; you do not believe in a flat earth unless you can prove it is, not you believe in a flat earth untill you can prove it is not.

quite simply, god's existance cannot be proven by the scientific method.

ergo, god does not exist. simple, from a purely logical sense.


of course, outside of logic, god may exist. but there is no evidence of him in this world.

a common quote is the one about "you can't see the wind, but you know it's there". quite fallicious, when used to defend faith in god. you can see the trees move, you can feel the wind.

you cannot see god's actions; actions are merely attributed to god.

god, therefore, is based upon faith alone. you either believe in him or you don't. if you attempt to prove he exists, you will fail.

however; belief in god is faith. science is logic. the two should not cross.

i do not walk into a church and distrust the bible on matters of faith becuase of logic. Ergo, christians should not walk into a classroom and distrust science on matters of logic because of faith.

saying you don't believe in evolution because of faith in god is as absurd as saying you don't believe in god because of evolution.

matters of faith and matters of logic need not, and should not, mix.

[*mipadi*]

a common quote is the one about "you can't see the wind, but you know it's there".  quite fallicious, when used to defend faith in god.  you can see the trees move, you can feel the wind. 

you cannot see god's actions;  actions are merely attributed to god.

You can't see the actions of the wind, either, but merely the consequences of the action of the wind. The same goes for God. My point is that, using that logic, a religious person can easily point out that one cannot see God performing an action, but one can see the results of such action (e.g. miracles).

[NoSex]

You can't see the actions of the wind, either, but merely the consequences of the action of the wind. The same goes for God. My point is that, using that logic, a religious person can easily point out that one cannot see God performing an action, but one can see the results of such action (e.g. miracles).

It's a false analogy.

We can show exactly how and why there is a causal relation between the wind and the movement of the trees. We can not show such a relation between a so-called miracle and an, for the most part, unknown entity hiding behind the laws of nature.

Obviously we have the knowledge, and scientific instruments necessary to measure, detect, and explain the nature of wind currents and their effects on us and our enviroment. We can demonstrate these proofs and understand them. The same can not be said for any spirtiual form of "measurment or detection."

We don't have faith that the wind is there, we know that the wind is there. It would take a larger amount of assumptions to believe that the wind was indeed not there than to believe that it is. So, reason dictates that we accept the reality of wind. Belief in the exitsence of wind is proportional to evidence, reason, and rationality. The same can not be said for belief in God.

Also, the standard of evidence, burden of proof, and all other mechanisms of proper reasoning need to be considered in the matter.

[Ington]

Basically, because we don't have hard scientific proof on the existence of God, we shouldn't believe He exists?

You know, at a time, people thought the world was round flat.

Yes it's true. Science can be that way, but for some reason, I find science much more reasonable than God. Besides, science doesn't really justify your acts and tell you that you're going to hell if you're gay or commit this certain sin. Science has proven a lot of things like gravity, cells, etc. But what has God proven? In the bible he talks of rules we have to live by that are all of a sudden contradicted in the next few books. There's always something about heaven and hell and yet we do not know of it. They talk of blessing those who do not see but believe. Or is that just something the bible used to convince Christians to remain faithful?

Lets assume there is a God for a minute. Would it be better for Him to set up a system of rules for mankind to build off of, or to show how things work? Obviously you haven't been reading into it much, because all those things you said were pretty vain. The rules are to avoid chaos. Supposedly He created and loves us all, and the point of it all was to treat each other well. Really, I think if everything were explained first, we'd all have killed each other. Thats why we were created with the mind capacity to solve things for ourselves.

Oh, and Christians read the bible. The bible isn't Christian. Therefore, the bible isn't only for Christians, and that last sentence was pretty shallow as well.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Basically, because we don't have hard scientific proof on the existence of God, we shouldn't believe He exists?

You know, at a time, people thought the world was round.

the world is round. Did you mean square?

Isn't that just something that helps prove that we might be wrong about God? That in this period of time we used to think there is a god and then all of a sudden in the future we were able to prove he doesn't?